New York maintains among the strictest firearm regulations in the United States, and the consequences of an unlicensed weapons arrest are severe. A first conviction for criminal possession of a firearm under Penal Law § 265.03 carries a presumptive 3.5-year mandatory minimum sentence in state prison. Federal weapons charges — including possession by a prohibited person under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and the use of a firearm during a crime of violence or drug trafficking offense under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) — carry consequences that can be even more severe. The firm defends these matters with the precision the stakes require.
New York's Mandatory Minimum Regime
Penal Law § 265.03 makes the possession of a loaded firearm outside the home or place of business a class C violent felony, and it operates against a sentencing structure that imposes a presumptive 3.5-year minimum on a first conviction. The judge's discretion to impose a lesser sentence is constrained, and the prosecution's discretion to offer a misdemeanor disposition is correspondingly narrow. In this environment, the only reliable path to a sentence below the mandatory minimum is the litigation of the underlying stop and search — and the firm litigates those issues with the rigor the stakes demand.
Suppression of the Firearm
Most unlicensed firearm prosecutions begin with a stop — of a person on the street, of a vehicle on the highway, of a passenger in a livery cab. Each of those stops is governed by a body of Fourth Amendment law and, in New York, by the additional protections of People v. De Bour. The firm examines every stop for the presence of reasonable suspicion or probable cause, the propriety of any subsequent frisk, and the legality of any search that produced the firearm. Where the record supports a suppression motion, the firm prepares it with the depth of factual development the caselaw rewards. A successful suppression motion in a § 265.03 case frequently ends the prosecution.
Constructive Possession and Multi-Occupant Vehicles
When a firearm is recovered from a vehicle occupied by more than one person, or from a residence shared by multiple individuals, the prosecution typically proceeds on a theory of constructive possession. The automobile presumption under Penal Law § 265.15(3) raises a rebuttable presumption that all occupants of a vehicle in which a firearm is found possess it, but the presumption is subject to exceptions and to evidentiary challenge. The firm litigates these cases with attention to the precise location of the firearm, the relationship of each occupant to the vehicle, and the evidence of dominion and control over the area in which the firearm was found.
Federal Section 922(g) and Section 924(c) Charges
Federal weapons prosecutions present distinct dangers. A conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) — possession of a firearm by a person previously convicted of a felony, by an unlawful user of controlled substances, or by another prohibited person — exposes the defendant to a Guidelines range driven by the criminal history and the nature of the firearm involved. A conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) — the use, carrying, or possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence or drug trafficking offense — carries a mandatory consecutive sentence that begins at five years and escalates dramatically with the manner of use. The firm has the experience to defend these matters and the judgment to identify the dispositions that protect the client's long-term interests.
Bruen, Heller, and the Evolving Second Amendment
The Supreme Court's decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller, McDonald v. City of Chicago, and most recently New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen have meaningfully reshaped the constitutional landscape against which firearm prosecutions are litigated. In appropriate cases, the firm advances Second Amendment challenges to the underlying statute, recognizing that the law in this area is in active development and that the preservation of the issue may matter as much as its present resolution.
Discharge, Assault, and Aggravated Possession
When a firearm is alleged to have been discharged or used in an assault, the exposure expands accordingly. Charges under Penal Law §§ 120.05, 120.10, 265.04, and 265.09 — and the federal counterparts under § 924(c) — bring sentencing exposure that can run into decades. The firm prepares these matters with the care of trial work from the moment of retention, retaining ballistics experts, crime scene reconstruction specialists, and where appropriate, eyewitness identification experts. Preparation of this character is the precondition to a favorable disposition or a successful trial.
Why These Cases Demand Specialized Defense
The combination of mandatory minimum sentencing, the constrained negotiating posture of the prosecution, and the technical complexity of the suppression law makes firearm defense an area in which experience matters more than in almost any other category of criminal practice. The firm has spent decades in the courtrooms in which these cases are tried, and that experience is brought to bear on every weapons matter it accepts.
